Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-21-Speech-2-744"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100921.24.2-744"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, to start with, I would like to thank you for your clear answer and your very clearly expressed views. As Parliament, we must send out a very clear message and that message is one of support for the Commission.
Whether we now think that the directive has gone too far or has not gone far enough, that it has arrived too late or a little prematurely, the fact of the matter is that a majority of this House has, together with the Council and the Commission, adopted something that now has the force of law and that must be put into effect. As the Commission, you have the task of ensuring that that legislation is unambiguously implemented. In terms of clarity, this piece of legislation leaves nothing to be desired. It is extensively referenced and I will reiterate here, once again: from 1 January 2012, all flights departing from, or arriving at, an airport situated in the territory of a Member State will fall under this directive. Therefore, this will also include flights originating from third countries, whether outward or return.
It is important to stress this last point because there are some airlines which are casting doubt on this. We cannot have a situation where third countries are required to pay for only half of their flights, namely, either the outward
the return flight. That would distort the competition between European airlines, on the one hand, and other airlines, on the other. Surely, that cannot be the correct interpretation.
Third countries which have problems with this legislation should be told once again that their airlines could escape the provisions of this directive if these countries put in place their own measures to cut CO
emissions in this sector. In other words, it is not our intention to secure potential profits – on the contrary. If everyone copied what we are doing, we would certainly make less money out of this, but we would definitely achieve our environmental objectives and that is the essence of this piece of legislation.
As a result, our American friends and others who are trying to prevent the inevitable through legal means or all kinds of manoeuvres within ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, would do better to formulate constructive proposals, so that we can reach a worldwide agreement that would, on the one hand, lead to a level playing field for everyone, which is something that we all desire, and, on the other, bring about more sustainable aviation.
Besides, as far as the United States are concerned, I should add that in the second aviation agreement between the European Union and the United States, which was finalised last spring and is currently at the approval stage, the United States implicitly recognised that it ought to be possible to create market-based instruments relating to emissions. In particular, Article 15 of this agreement states that the joint committee can make recommendations for eliminating any potential overlaps or inconsistencies and avoiding any duplication of measures and costs.
Therefore, there is no doubt that the agreement the two aviation blocs have negotiated will pave the way for mutual recognition of this type of emissions trading scheme. Consequently, I would like to urge you once again to stick to your guns, to communicate very clearly, and to make it clear that there is no way back."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
"or"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples